Big FAQ?

[Chickenbits]

10 hours ago, Vextol said:

I'm like the spokesperson for this it seems.  If you kill (and I don't care what anyone is saying about "just as good", GW has killed basically every artifact they've touched for the history of time) the good artifacts, you'll just have five more good artifacts that everyone will complain about until eventually they won't make any impact at all.   Your variety will become indifference.

 Artifacts are some of the only things that keep this game consistently intriguing.  They are an excellent way to add variety without adding cost.  I wish people would stop begging for nerfs on things that are interesting and instead ask for validation on the garbage noone wants instead.  

As others have pointed out, the main problem isn't that it's the same 5 artefacts used every game (although admittedly that's how I put it), it's that the ones that are used are extremely powerful and just unfun to play against. They also reward lazy listbuilding and not giving a ****** about strategy. 

 

Play a match against a Durthu with the cloak, and you will see what I mean. Durthu goes from becoming a powerful hero to becoming a invincible murder-machine, with no tactical thought required on behalf of the Sylvaneth-player. Artefacts like this should be discouraged at all costs.

[chord]

45 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

They absolutely do - I lost 2 players in my store because of this. Both had just gotten in to AoS, one with DoK and one with KO. Both were new to tabletop gaming as a hobby and after about 3 months of play both decided to quit because of how much better DoK were than KO. The player who picked DoK was absolutely not attempting to 'create imbalance' - he was just a casual/new player who was taking logical things (unit of witches, cauldrons, hags, khinerai). But what happened was DoK did in fact break the game in a friendly gaming atmosphere - to the point where both players decided the game wasn't fun and sold their armies. 

That's why balance matters - there is this constant crowing about how tournament gamers are only a small slice, casual players don't break the game, etc. But that all ignores the fact that, outside experienced gamers, an army like DoK (or KO or most non tome armies on the other end) can quickly lead to a lot of negative play experiences. What happens if a group gets started and one guy does take DoK because he likes the army, he isn't a try hard, but he's beating his other buddies consistently and gets ostracized from the group? Was he just supposed to know what not to take? Is he supposed to buy even more new models so his friends will play him again? 

Having power gaps like what exist in AoS right now is bad for everyone not just tournament players. I can't beat DoK with KO so how am I supposed to help a new player do it? We've got a growing community at my store but I can tell you that massive gaps in army efficacy isn't a helpful recruiting tool. 

To be clear I don't think the game should only be balanced (semantics aside as its not an argument I'm interested in) around tournament play. What I am saying is that GW needs to address issues like how good DoK are (and how bad KO are) in a more timely manner because they impact more than just tournament players. 

This is an example of them playing to win, not playing for fun (although both are possible if both players have the same goal).

If they had the goal of fun in mind the solution would have been to either have the DoK player bring less points or have KO bring more points (if points are being used).  Alternatively the KO player could have been allowed to bring back 1-2 units as reinforcements from the sky (fluffy too), etc.  Or they could have played sans allegiance abilities and try that out.  

There are ways to balance fun casual games out with crying to GW to fix stuff.  

That being said I believe DoK is way overpowered and that this is done intentionally by GW to sell models.  

[Dead Scribe]

They also reward lazy listbuilding and not giving a ****** about strategy. 

Games that push having to have strong strategy have a harder road to playing the game well.  Lazy listbuilding and not being punished for not being good at strategy is more inclusive, and is a far better business model for games in general.

Games that require a lot of tactical and strategic mastery also are very niche and don't sell very well.  For a reason.

[Glaurung]

You can't always change the others. You can't just solve all the problems empowering every faction, because that way the game will be "my unit A charges yours and deletes it, your unit B countercharges and deletes A" and so on.

DoK are not "balanced" because their units can do everything while costing as a standard battleline. It's the same problem with Idoneth's eels, with skeletons, grimgast: you get too much for what you pay. And the problem, in my opinion, is that there too many rules that overlap, buffs over buffs (and debuffs).
This thing of allegiances, while I absolutely love it, is breaking the game and I think AoS is bloated now.
I love comboes. I love having many options. I love the idea of rewarding players for taking mono-faction lists. But I think GW should be a little less generous with additional rules.

The problem is that, to make them balanced, considering every single buff they can have, they should take the points of witches up to like, I don't know, 140?
Eels to 170? That's not really what I want, but taking away rules from battletomes (KO docet), it's equally bad. 
 

However, I think they need to do so, sadly. For witches, they should change the range to "wholly", they should just change that temple, they should limit prayers, as everyone has already said. But it's so difficult to do, and I think they missed the opportunity with this FAQ to "start" doing so.
I love AoS, I think the game is in good health, but if you start to have a LoN or DoK player in your gaming group, things can become dangerous, as they have to be really careful on what they play.

[SwampHeart]

33 minutes ago, chord said:

This is an example of them playing to win, not playing for fun (although both are possible if both players have the same goal).

If they had the goal of fun in mind the solution would have been to either have the DoK player bring less points or have KO bring more points (if points are being used).  Alternatively the KO player could have been allowed to bring back 1-2 units as reinforcements from the sky (fluffy too), etc.  Or they could have played sans allegiance abilities and try that out.  

There are ways to balance fun casual games out with crying to GW to fix stuff.  

You'll have to forgive me for not thinking that 'use house rules' is a great solution to 'massive army imbalance'. Especially for 2 brand new players who assumed that their 2 armies would be roughly the same as far as how good they are. They weren't 'playing to win' they were literally just playing the game with the points as advertised. How exactly were they to know that it is incumbent on them to fix the rules of the game they are playing? That's a pretty lazy excuse for poor rules.

I'd also like to be super clear - I belabor this because I am passionate about AoS. I love the game, I love the world and I do think its worlds better than anything else GW has produced balance wise. This is why things like DoK, KO, and Grimghast bother me - GW is so close, we know where the outliers are, and they just chose to not even make an attempt at fixing the issue. What's the point of a living ruleset if you're not going to use it? These things bother me because I want AoS to be better. Its not about just picking at nits, its about seeing how close the game is and just wishing GW would get there.  For me its just as much about a DoK player being able to play their army without being labelled a try-hard as it is for a KO player being able to possibly win a game against a modern battletome. 

I don't want GW to nerf DoK into the ground - I wasn't expecting points changes in this FAQ. But I was expecting wholly within for witches and some wording changes on Hag Nar. Neither of those is cataclysmic in their nature and atleast one is just a natural extension of the way the game is currently moving. So please forgive me for feeling like GW really missed the mark with this FAQ.  

[chord]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

You'll have to forgive me for not thinking that 'use house rules' is a great solution to 'massive army imbalance'. Especially for 2 brand new players who assumed that their 2 armies would be roughly the same as far as how good they are. They weren't 'playing to win' they were literally just playing the game with the points as advertised. How exactly were they to know that it is incumbent on them to fix the rules of the game they are playing? That's a pretty lazy excuse for poor rules.

Poor Rules?  No. 

Poor rules for matched play? Yes!

The core rule book describes three ways to play ,  discussing with new players the various options and ways to enjoy the game is community outreach and something we veteran players should be doing.  Better to show them how to use "house rules" to have fun then to lose people from the hobby IMO

[Dead Scribe]

House rules make the game different from player to player.  For new players expecially I think that is not good.  That causes confusion.

[stato]

6 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

You'll have to forgive me for not thinking that 'use house rules' is a great solution to 'massive army imbalance'. Especially for 2 brand new players who assumed that their 2 armies would be roughly the same as far as how good they are. They weren't 'playing to win' they were literally just playing the game with the points as advertised. How exactly were they to know that it is incumbent on them to fix the rules of the game they are playing? That's a pretty lazy excuse for poor rules.

I can imagine part of the reason they didnt continue was if the first 2 armies they picked were so hugely imbalanced, they might think whats to say that wont keep happening again in the future.   As new players they cant have known what obsessives (us) know, that stuff goes up and down and hopefully what you have will come round, but you will probably have to adapt and change what you play with along the way (or they might have known and just decided it sounds a bit shite to have to do all that).

[SwampHeart]

8 minutes ago, chord said:

The core rule book describes three ways to play ,  discussing with new players the various options and ways to enjoy the game is community outreach and something we veteran players should be doing.  Better to show them how to use "house rules" to have fun then to lose people from the hobby IMO

Yeah I mean that's a great way to sell the hobby right? 'Hey I know you aren't having a great time right now but what you can do is play with a handicap'. Then that leads to questions about how he should approach other players in our community. Should he ask them for the handicap as well? What message does that send him about the overall state of the game? What happens if they're just two mates playing the game for the first time without veterans to teach them? Sorry I don't feel like that's the best solution at all. As a matter of fact I've stated what is the best solution - GW fixing the major army imbalance that exists. 

It should not be incumbent on the players to fix GW's sloppy rules - especially when GW has a mechanism by which to fix them themselves (i.e the bi-yearly FAQs). Here's the simple truth of it - if those armies had been better designed then both those guys would still be GW customers. But they aren't. 

 

[chord]

Just now, SwampHeart said:

Yeah I mean that's a great way to sell the hobby right? 'Hey I know you aren't having a great time right now but what you can do is play with a handicap'. Then that leads to questions about how he should approach other players in our community. Should he ask them for the handicap as well? What message does that send him about the overall state of the game? What happens if they're just two mates playing the game for the first time without veterans to teach them? Sorry I don't feel like that's the best solution at all. As a matter of fact I've stated what is the best solution - GW fixing the major army imbalance that exists. 

It should not be incumbent on the players to fix GW's sloppy rules - especially when GW has a mechanism by which to fix them themselves (i.e the bi-yearly FAQs). 

 

Literally there are 3 ways to play!  

[Dead Scribe]

They say there are 3 ways to play but I personally no nobody that plays anything other than matched, and its very rare that I read about someone not playing matched even on forums or facebook groups.  Thats why AOS tanked so hard when it first came out.  99% of us play matched play, and AOS had no matched play on rollout.  

[SwampHeart]

11 minutes ago, chord said:

Literally there are 3 ways to play!  

Have you ever read the section on open or narrative? Do you really think that would have helped the situation? They were brand new players - they have no concept of what 'even' even roughly looks like. Just because there are 3 ways to play doesn't fix awful imbalance, if anything open and narrative can exacerbate it because they lack any frame of reference to put the game together.  I mean most narrative events still use matched play rules for God's sake. 

[relic456]

The three ways to play argument is pretty soft and just stonewalls any further discussion.  We all know that Narrative and Open play exist but the reason most people play with Matched Play rules, even in non-competitive environments, is that everyone is on the same page from the get go.  Further, having to haggle with your opponent about how to handicap your armies isn't a solution and is going to be a negative experience for new players.  They probably have no idea what factors are creating inbalance in the first place.  Imagine a brand spankin' new DoK player rolling in to a store with a 1000 point army and being told that they have to play 200 points down since their army is overtuned.  That's a feel bad moment before he or she has even put their models on the board. 

3 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

They were brand new players - they have no concept of what 'even' even roughly looks like. Just because there are 3 ways to play doesn't fix awful imbalance, if anything open and narrative can exacerbate it because they lack any frame of reference to put the game together.

I wholeheartedly agree, putting the onus of balance on new players in unstructured formats is bonkers.

[Nos]

The other thing worth noting is that we are always behind where GW think AOS is, because of the rate at which they develop the game. I don’t think GW are bothered about changing things too much now simply because AOS is always evolving, and they would rather invest the time that balance takes into producing something new instead. 6 months before the GHB is really a very small window for them, they’re probably well into their plans for 2020 at this point.

Bottom line: They haven’t lost any money from people buying the models they have so far, regardless of whether they use them still or people are refusing to play against them etc. That’s money in the bank. Nor is the Game seen as broken or incomplete to the point that people aren’t buying their products or anything. Quite the opposite. In that sense, from GW’s perspective, things are pretty much perfect right now. They arent for people who prioritise balance, but I mean if that’s really your main interest why are you playing AOS to begin with? 

[Chickenbits]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

Games that push having to have strong strategy have a harder road to playing the game well.  Lazy listbuilding and not being punished for not being good at strategy is more inclusive, and is a far better business model for games in general.

Games that require a lot of tactical and strategic mastery also are very niche and don't sell very well.  For a reason.

Of course, I'm not saying I want this game to be Tzun zhu-level of tactical planning. Just saying that the Cloak and Amulet take things way to far in the other direction.

Take Durthy with a cloak. Unless you have good shooting, the ONLY way to beat him is this: Charge him with 2 units. You activate the first unit, which cannot harm him in any way, due to the Sylvaneth players  masterful strategy of writing "Cloak" next to Durthu on his list-sheet. Then, the Sylvaneth player activates Durthu, absolutely destroying the 2nd unit due to him dealing 6 damage per attack, meaning that only the strongest, most OP units can survive. 

Can it be beaten? Sure, but the cloak gives the controlling player such a MASSIVE advantage that it simply isn't fun. There is nothing satisfying for either player in the above scenario, it is simply not fun to play against, and frankly, I don't even think GW thought the cloak through all that much to begin with, given how they specifically nerfed it now.

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

Of course, I'm not saying I want this game to be Tzun zhu-level of tactical planning. Just saying that the Cloak and Amulet take things way to far in the other direction.

I see where you are coming from but I think easy mode items like these are required to keep the game financially viable.  I guess what I mean is that I don't think they are too far in the other direction.  I think they are exactly where they need to be (obviously powerful) - too powerful to me would be an item that just erases an opposing unit every turn with no rolls required.

I think the GW game-verse requires easy model items like this to keep it as successful as it is from a financial standpoint.  

Where I stand, if I see things I think are way too powerful... I either take something just as powerful or I take those items that I think are too powerful so that I'm not at a handicap.  That way I am not negatively impacted by them from a performance standpoint.

The developers to me aren't interested in real balance and actively want over powered elements like those items in the game.  Their target audience I don't think cares that much about balance.  They just want to play and be successful or at least feel like they are being successful at the game, and those items are the catalyst for that happening.

[Nos]

44 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Yeah I mean that's a great way to sell the hobby right? 'Hey I know you aren't having a great time right now but what you can do is play with a handicap'. Then that leads to questions about how he should approach other players in our community. Should he ask them for the handicap as well? What message does that send him about the overall state of the game? What happens if they're just two mates playing the game for the first time without veterans to teach them? Sorry I don't feel like that's the best solution at all. As a matter of fact I've stated what is the best solution - GW fixing the major army imbalance that exists. 

It should not be incumbent on the players to fix GW's sloppy rules - especially when GW has a mechanism by which to fix them themselves (i.e the bi-yearly FAQs). Here's the simple truth of it - if those armies had been better designed then both those guys would still be GW customers. But they aren't. 

 

GW do have sloppy rules. absolutely. They’re also very wealthy, so it dosent matter. Their main customers don’t care about rules, otherwise they wouldn’t still be customers. They care about the stuff GW focus on and do better than everyone else. It’s a shame for your friends that they fell foul of what they did. But ultimately either most people don’t or they don’t care. If GW had any belief that rules and accuracy and balance really matter to their sales or affected them negatively you can guarantee they’d double down on it. But they don’t.  They double down on things like the Community stuff, painting vids, Lore, models, Boardgames, hobby supplies etc. Those are what are selling. Rules and balance are way down the priority list. Probably the bottom. They work out how they can build a system that allows them to basically ignore that system is from that point on and get on with the rest of what they do well, that’s it.

As someone who’s been in the hobby for 20+ years all their current talk of balance is very new but it’s also a total diversionary tactic. They know it looks good if they’re more invested in balance as that’s a common request in community spaces these days so they put out stuff like the FAQ as a sop to that mentality, advertise it as an event and such.  People think it must mean they’re invested in it now as they never used to do stuff like this.

But they’re not. Look at literally everything they do. It has nothing to do with rules or balance changes. It’s all hobby. That’s where the money is. That’s why they’re becoming even more successful. Bottom line, it’s toy soldiers. That’s it. They make the most exciting and fun toy soldiers to paint and play with. Trying to “balance” something as essentially emotional and nostalgic as that is an absolute fools errand. So they avoid that and they just go with what produces the most endorphins.

[relic456]

Personally, I would have preferred if Malign Sorcery had far fewer artefacts but that they were all on Ethereal Amulet/Cloak levels of power.  Even things like Ghyrstrike are great in my opinion.  But I guess "84 new artefacts!" sounds much better from a marketing perspective 😄

[RuneBrush]

+++MOD HAT+++

Deep breath needed by everybody here please.  It's great that you're all passionate, but none of us writes the rules and AoS is after all a game.  If you feel the need to vent, please take it elsewhere.

[SwampHeart]

18 minutes ago, Nos said:

GW do have sloppy rules. absolutely. They’re also very wealthy, so it dosent matter. Their main customers don’t care about rules, otherwise they wouldn’t still be customers. They care about the stuff GW focus on and do better than everyone else. It’s a shame for your friends that they fell foul of what they did. But ultimately either most people don’t or they don’t care. If GW had any belief that rules and accuracy and balance really matter to their sales or affected them negatively you can guarantee they’d double down on it. But they don’t.  They double down on things like the Community stuff, painting vids, Lore, models, Boardgames, hobby supplies etc. Those are what are selling. Rules and balance are way down the priority list. Probably the bottom. They work out how they can build a system that allows them to basically ignore that system is from that point on and get on with the rest of what they do well, that’s it.

If any single bit of this were true AoS wouldn't have bombed when it first released. Players obviously care about some form of balance - if they didn't match play wouldn't be the primary way most players play the game. The degree to which they care about balance may change from person to person but the idea that it simply doesn't matter at all to most players is false.  I can also point out that GW has reached out to build a play testing group outside its own confines as another example that they clearly see some value in attempting to make the game a better game. 

GW customers (and GW by extension) do care about rules - to a varying degree to be sure but they do care about them. 

[Chickenbits]

37 minutes ago, Nos said:

GW do have sloppy rules. absolutely. They’re also very wealthy, so it dosent matter. Their main customers don’t care about rules, otherwise they wouldn’t still be customers. They care about the stuff GW focus on and do better than everyone else. It’s a shame for your friends that they fell foul of what they did. But ultimately either most people don’t or they don’t care. If GW had any belief that rules and accuracy and balance really matter to their sales or affected them negatively you can guarantee they’d double down on it. But they don’t.  They double down on things like the Community stuff, painting vids, Lore, models, Boardgames, hobby supplies etc. Those are what are selling. Rules and balance are way down the priority list. Probably the bottom. They work out how they can build a system that allows them to basically ignore that system is from that point on and get on with the rest of what they do well, that’s it.

I'd say it's the opposite, actually. That's why we're getting the Ghb and FAQs.  40k 7th edition was bleeding players like crazy due to it being an unplayable mess, then 8th edition rolled around and made GW one of the fastest growing companies in the UK. Good rules and balance sells models. It's why the Nemesis dreadknight sold like hot-cakes even tho the community agreed it was the ugliest model ever.

Of course fluff is important aswell, but Good rules are mandatory for the long-term health of the game. 

[Nos]

4 minutes ago, Chickenbits said:

It's the opposite, actually. That's why we're getting the Ghb and FAQs.  40k 7th edition was bleeding players like crazy due to it being an unplayable mess, then 8th edition rolled around and made GW one of the fastest growing companies in the UK. Good rules and balance sells models. It's why the Nemesis dreadknight sold like hot-cakes even tho the community agreed it was the ugliest model ever.

Of course fluff is important aswell, but Good rules are mandatory for the long-term health of the game. 

They’re making and selling more models and products than ever-that has increased almost exponentially. That’s where their focd is.

Whereas as theyre  making two (2) pieces of rules errata per year. As I said, they’re looking for a bare minimum on rules not being an issue and they’ve found that with the single product relating to balance clarification per year. 

Or alternatively if you’re correct and it’s the balance focus which is keeping people around where they once used to leave, and one rules clarification per annum is all that’s needed to do that, then obviously the rules are in a great, pretty balanced position.  

[SwampHeart]

1 minute ago, Nos said:

and it’s the balance focus

Pretty disingenuous statement there to create a strawman.  Instead it is the perception of focus on balance that is keeping people involved, the idea that GW does care about their rules more than they used to (which is provable by the way). Either way your point is immaterial - GW told us the stated purpose of these FAQs and failed to follow through and that's the actual point. You can obfuscate that fact, you can try and shift the conversation but ultimately GW told us one thing and did another. As customers we have every right to be concerned with that and passionate about it. 

But also - AoS was an abject failure of a product on launch because players DO care about rules. If they didn't then AoS wouldn't have needed to be saved. 

[Nos]

15 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

If any single bit of this were true AoS wouldn't have bombed when it first released. Players obviously care about some form of balance - if they didn't match play wouldn't be the primary way most players play the game. The degree to which they care about balance may change from person to person but the idea that it simply doesn't matter at all to most players is false.  I can also point out that GW has reached out to build a play testing group outside its own confines as another example that they clearly see some value in attempting to make the game a better game. 

GW customers (and GW by extension) do care about rules - to a varying degree to be sure but they do care about them. 

Yes they do care about rules, never said otherwise. But the evidence-the overwhelming evidence-is they care about it far less than anything else that GW do. Otherwise how do you explain their success when their rules and balance have been notoriously poor for decades. What, honestly, have they done in the past two years that is so revolutionary in respect to a focus on rules and balance? 

The launch of AOS is such a poor argument that it was all about the balance changes. People who use it as evidence for that always talk as though that’s the *only* thing that was different. The entire product was a mess and so was the release and the marketing for it. If AOS now was like it was then but just with points values you’d have a point but it’s a completley  game and product for reasons that extend far beyond matched play.

[Fulkes]

I'll be honest, I did more skimming than reading to catch back up, but regarding the DoK I feel GW might be trying to work out how to change them without breaking the army, or looking at figuring out how to make other armies like them without breaking the game. That sort of testing and rewriting takes time and might not have been ready with their work on new products likely taking precedence.

And I agree, more artifacts of a higher level would have been a nice (especially since about half of them seem to be the same thing copy and pasted across multiple realms with a name change being the only new thing about them), but they don't all need to be the original Doppelganger Cloak levels of strong. Any artefact that makes a unit untargetable is too strong. Now if it originally gave an extra 4+ save against wounds and mortal wounds (to represent the 50% shot at hitting the wrong target) then I think we wouldn't be seeing as many problems with it. It'd be good, but it wouldn't break the game since you'd still have a chance of hurting the bearer.

I still stand by that I feel like the Realms should have been a way to give extra spell access to armies by giving you spells based on the realm your from instead of the one you're fighting in.  Basically treat it like another lore your wizard has access to and let them draw spells from it like they do any other lore they have access to meaning to use them requires more commitment as it can result in not taking certain spells from your army's lore or force you to give up artifacts to take that one spell you want or need.